Punjab-Haryana High Court
Visawa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 December, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18764 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 17, 2014
Visawa Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and
Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.69 dated 16.04.2013 under Sections 22, 25A, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that present case has been falsely planted upon the petitioner by the police by showing recovery of 5 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine powder, which is a controlled substance and does not fall either in VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-18764 of 2014 -2- narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that though in the FIR, the recovered powder has been mentioned as Pseudoephedrine but as per the FSL report, Methamphetamine salt has been found in the sample and as per Schedule of NDPS Act, more than 50 grams of Methamphetamine is commercial quantity and from the present petitioner, 5 kgs. of Methamphetamine has been recovered.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and after going through the record, I find that though in the FIR Pseudoephedrine powder has been stated to be have been recovered, which is a controlled substance but as per FSL report, salt has been found to be Methamphetamine and as per Schedule of NDPS Act, more than 50 grams of Methamphetamine is commercial quantity. From the present petitioner, 5 kgs. of Methamphetamine has been recovered. Section 37 of the NDPS Act debars grant of bail to the accused in case of commercial quantity.
At this stage, in no way, it can be held that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case nor in any way, it can be held that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may not commit the offence again. The challan against the petitioner has already been presented on 26.09.2013 and charges have already been framed on 10.04.2014. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the statement of Davinder Singh @ Happy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgments VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-18764 of 2014 -3- passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 380 of 2013 titled as Rasikbhai Jashmatbhai Dalshania vs. Union of India and another and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1360 of 2013 titled as Saiyed Vazeerullah Hajimulla Pasha vs. State of Gujarat and another. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgments of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 1202 of 2013 titled as Niranjan Jayantilal Shah vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence" and Crl. M.C. No. 2110 of 2008 titled as Department of Customs vs. Hemant Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in CRM No.M-17180 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M 36492 of 2013 (O&M) titled as Avtar Singh @ Tari vs. State of Punjab and CRM- M-37903 of 2013 titled as Rajwinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgments passed by this Court in CRM No.M-27654 of 2008 titled as Rajeev Kumar @ Sukha vs. State of Punjab, CRR No.2099 of 2008 titled as Rajeev Kumar @ Sukha vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M- 17180 of 2010 titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-1940 of 2009 titled as Rajinder Singh @ Minku vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-5071 of 2011 titled as Narinder Kumar Aggarwal @ Goel vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-36492 of 2013 titled as Avtar Singh @ Tari vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-37140 of 2013 titled as Kirpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M- VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-18764 of 2014 -4- 37903 of 2013 titled as Rajwinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-8339 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Singh Chahal vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-43845 of 2013 titled as Harpreet Singh Lamba vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-3531 of 2014 titled as Kulbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-9278 of 2014 titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-11967 of 2014 titled as Sanjay Goel vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-24317 of 2014 titled as Ajay Jain vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-21420 of 2014 titled as Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-28274 of 2014 titled as Varinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab.
I have gone through all the above cited judgments. In none of the cited judgments, it has been held that despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should be granted. In none of the above cited judgments, it has been held that bail must be granted to the accused. The Courts have granted the bails to the accused in the above-cited cases keeping in view the facts of each case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any ground to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
December 17, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2014.12.24 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh